FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROCHES STORES (PATRICK STREET) CORK (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Disturbance Claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company embarked on a phased building programme at its premises in Patrick Street in 1992. The work is due to be completed in 1997.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on behalf of approximately 650 workers employed in the store for compensation for the disturbance caused during the building. The Union claims that considerable inconvenience was caused and that compensation was paid to workers in similar circumstances when the Company carried out renovations at its stores in Galway and Blackrock, County Dublin. Management rejected the Union's claim.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 25th of October 1995 but agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 8th February, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th April, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The building programme has been in progress for more than 4 years. The staff has co-operated fully with management throughout this period of inconvenience.
2. Many instances of disturbance and inconvenience have been brought to the attention of management.
3. It was necessary for staff, on occasion, to remove layers of dirt from shelves and from some items of stock. Uniforms had to be cleaned on a daily basis.
4. Minor accidents occurred and occasionally the noise from building equipment made it difficult for staff and customers to communicate.
5. Workers employed by the Company at its Galway and Blackrock stores were compensated in recognition of their co-operation during building programmes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The building programme for Patrick Street was completely different from that which had taken place in other stores such as Galway and Blackrock. In both of these cases an existing store was converted into a shopping centre comprising of a department store and other shop units. This by its nature caused some disruption to the day to day operation.
2. The Patrick Street project involved the demolition of old buildings and the rebuilding of that section. Consequently a new approach was taken by the Company to avoid the disruption to staff and trade which had been the previous experience in the other locations. It was decided to rebuild Patrick Street in various phases over a period of years. The scale of the project and the phased timing of it allowed the Company to vacate areas of old buildings and to separate the unoccupied section from the occupied by means of a dust free weather proofing partition.
3. There were immediate benefits to staff in that the first phase provided for excellent dining, cloakroom and working conditions. It is hoped that the development will improve business and benefit staff in terms of enhanced job security and additional full-time jobs.
4. The claim was served by the Union prior to the building programme. Clearly it was anticipated that there would be disruption but this did not materialise. The phasing of the work has meant that there has been no disruption to staff of any noticeable proportion. The Company is satisfied that any inconvenience caused has been minimal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having listened to the submissions of both parties, finds as follows:-
1. The steps taken by the Company to minimise disruption by means of phased isolated restructuring resulted in much reduced disruption to staff compared to the Galway and Blackrock rebuilding programmes.
2. The co-operation of approximately 650 staff throughout, which was essential to the satisfactory ongoing business of the Company, should be acknowledged. The Court recommends payment of a lump sum of £10,000 into a fund to be used as the staff consider appropriate. This could be used or divided as decided by majority decision of the staff representatives.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
20th May, 1996______________________
F.B./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.